The EU has declared three leaks in two Russia-Germany gas pipelines to be the work of sabotage and suspicion has fallen on Russia.
Some commentators have suggested the leaks are linked to the Ukraine war, though the Kremlin has described the accusations it was behind them as “predictable” and “stupid”.
Here is what we know about what happened to Nord Stream 1 and 2, who could have been responsible and what’s being done about it.
What happened and where
On Monday morning, at around 2am local time, bubbles are thought to have started erupting on the surface of a section of the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Poland, about 14 miles (23km) southeast of Denmark’s Bornholm Island.
That morning, it was reported that pressure in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline had dropped overnight from 105 bars to 7 bars, indicating a leak.
The Nord Stream 2 pipe runs for 764 miles (1,230km) from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany and had been due to carry billions of cubic feet of gas to Europe until Russia invaded Ukraine and Germany refused to grant the pipeline’s operators a licence, leaving it mothballed.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
Denmark scrambled military aircraft to look for signs of a leak and identified an area of disturbed sea, which they designated a danger to shipping.
The time of the leak was confirmed by readings taken by seismologists in neighbouring countries, who registered the equivalent of an earthquake magnitude of 1.8, which they triangulated to have occurred at almost exactly the same spot as the leak was bubbling to the surface.
Advertisement
About 17 hours after the Nord Stream 2 reading was taken, a second reading was recorded by seismologists northeast of Bornholm, indicating another incident.
Shortly after, Nord Stream AG, the operator of the Nord Stream 1, said it was looking into causes of a drop in pressure in the pipeline.
Again, seismologists’ readings located the incident to a specific location – around 34 miles (55km) northeast of Bornholm Island.
The following morning, Sweden’s Maritime Authority issued a warning of two leaks in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline in its and Danish waters, bringing the total number of leaks to three.
Nord Stream 1 follows a similar but not identical route from Russia to Germany and had been used to ship Russian gas to Europe since 2011, until the outbreak of the Ukraine war.
As Europe reeled from the Vladimir Putin’s invasion, it moved to reduce its reliance on gas from Russia, and simultaneously, flows through Nord Stream 1 to Europe from Russia decreased until no gas was flowing through the pipeline.
Footage from the scene taken from a Danish plane showed frothy seas, up to a kilometre wide.
What do the experts say
Initially, the European countries nearby were cautious, saying investigation was needed to find out what had happened.
The operator of the pipelines said the leaks were “unprecedented”, but did not have an explanation for them.
The Kremlin was quick to say sabotage could not be ruled out.
In the course of Tuesday, seismologists who had recorded the incidents said their analysis indicated the tremors had been caused by explosions.
Bjorn Lund, director of the Swedish National Seismic Network, said: “There’s no doubt, this is not an earthquake.”
By Wednesday, many politicians were adamant that the damage to the pipes was caused by human activity and deliberate, rather than because of earthquakes or accidental.
Danish defence minister Morten Bodskov said on Wednesday: “Our assessment is… that the breakage on the pipes is not an accident but a deliberate act.”
Image: The Danish and Swedish military have been observing the bubbling at the surface. Pic: Swedish Coast Guard
Who was responsible
Very early on, suspicion fell on Russia. A number of commentators asked who would profit from such ruptures in the pipelines, noting how it had the potential to affect gas prices.
Ukraine blamed Russia immediately, with presidential adviser Myhailo Podolyak saying the leak was “a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards the EU”, without offering any evidence.
Gas prices soared again on Monday, largely in reaction to a threat from Moscow to sanction Ukrainian energy firm Naftogaz, raising the possibility that one of the last functioning Russian gas supply routes to Europe would close down.
But many expressed disbelief that Russia would target infrastructure that carried gas that it had sold, threatening its future revenues. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called such accusations “predictable and… stupid”.
Yet there has been much speculation that an attack by Russia on the pipelines could be a warning to the West not to escalate the Ukraine war further.
This is because the pipelines were not operational at the time and they supplied Russian gas, so would be less likely to be seen as a further significant provocation.
Russia has been becoming increasingly frustrated that Western supplied weapons have been helping Ukraine resist Moscow’s invasion.
On Tuesday Poland’s President Andrzej Duda symbolically opened the valve of a yellow pipe belonging to the Baltic Pipe, a new system sending Norwegian gas across Denmark and the Baltic Sea to Poland, which he hailed as ending “Russian domination in the gas sphere”.
Some commentators have pointed out that while the gas leaks erupted in Denmark and Sweden’s Exclusive Economic Zones, they were outside their territorial waters, and therefore could be classed as having happened in international waters, making retaliation more complicated.
Others have cited the fact that there are significant networks of piping under the North Sea that could be vulnerable to attack. If the cause of the leaks is proven to have been an attack, it would reveal the ease with which undersea infrastructure can be targeted.
The method used by any potential saboteurs is far from clear. Russia has submarines which Western experts say are equipped to attack international internet cables, but there are suggestions the vessel was out of range at the time. Others say deep sea divers, travelling from the nearby Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, could have planted a device.
How will we find out
Experts say they expect that navies from surrounding countries will send teams with specialist experience into the area to carry out investigations.
Mr Bodskov said the Danish military had increased its presence within and around the area of Bornholm and they would be “doing everything within their power to get this clarified which is happening in close collaboration with our partners”.
But he said it may take some weeks.
“If you listen to the experts about how much gas there is the pipes and how long it will take before the pressure drops, then the reality is that might take a week, 14 days before it is calm enough in the area to actually see what has happened,” he added.
Any investigation is likely to look closely at damage to the pipes, which, at around 1,153mm in diameter with 34mm thick steel walls, surrounded by, in some cases, more than 110mm of concrete, would be difficult to crack.
Image: Investigations are likely to look at damage to the pipe which is 34mm thick steel and covered, when underwater, with more than 100mm of concrete
Peter Faulding, one of the foremost British underwater forensic investigators, whose Specialist Group International has been involved in numerous undersea investigations carried out by UK police, said he expects the initial investigation to involve remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), which are also known as drones.
“People will be very wary about putting divers near it because… you’ve got a large amount of gas coming out,” he told Sky News.
“I would say they’d be using remote operated vehicles to go down. An ROV, because they have manipulators on the front. If there was any debris, the manipulator… can retrieve the evidence and an ROV will give crystal clear pictures without putting a diver in jeopardy.
“A lot them are autonomous now. They can send them down without a cable and they can actually pick things up off the sea bed.
“You would see what it was. If it was done with explosive, it will be very rough. There’ll be residues. There’d be fragments.“
“From that, they can carry out appropriate forensic tests to see what explosive it was, if an explosive has been used.”
Mr Faulding, who has previous military experience and carries out consultancy work for the energy industry, said once it was safe, because the pipelines are at a depth of about 70m, the navies would probably put down divers operating out of a diving bell, but they would have to breathe a special mixture and would work in a similar way to those who carry out work on undersea oil facilities.
He said it should not be difficult to work out which explosive, if any, had been used, but it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to work out who carried out an attack.
What are the consequences
In the immediate aftermath, European leaders expressed concern and said they would work to find out what had happened.
The gas markets remained volatile, but experts said that much of Tuesday’s volatility was due to fears that Russia would stop shipping gas through Ukraine, rather that because of the possibility of an attack on Nord Stream 1 or 2.
Nonetheless, experts said that the leaks had added to the uncertainty that has been fuelling much higher gas prices this year than in previous years.
Image: Norway has a substantial gas and oil industry network across the North Sea, supplying much of Europe
Gas analyst Tom Marzec-Manser told Sky News: “The market opened bullishly yesterday in response to the Nord Stream stuff. But then it jumped significantly when that Ukraine development happened, when Gazprom threatened the sanctions. That actually was a larger wedge of the gains yesterday. But it’s definitely all part and parcel of the… loss of yet more Russian gas (being) the main driver to a 27% jump yesterday in wholesale prices.”
Despite doubts in the gas industry that any potential attacks could spread, Norway’s state oil company, Equinor, said it would raise its level of preparedness.
The alert was raised overnight and applies to all of Equinor’s facilities.
Norway is a major producer of offshore oil and gas and its energy exports have surged as European countries scramble to find alternatives to Russian energy supplies.
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said: “We are concerned with taking good care of the safety of our own oil and gas installations, and we have stepped up the state of preparedness regarding them today.”
Royal Norwegian Navy officer Lieutenant Commander Tor Ivar Strommen warned that there could be attacks on Norwegian energy exports “in the next half year”.
NATO and the European Union stressed the need to protect critical infrastructure and warned of a “robust and united response” should there be more attacks.
Mr Strommen told Reuters: “The Norwegian government has to realise that by far the most important strategic object in all of Europe now is the energy or gas imports from Norway.
“If those deliveries should be cut or stopped or reduced by a large amount, this would cause a complete energy crisis in Europe.”
Volodymyr Zelenskyy says two Chinese citizens have been captured while fighting in eastern Ukraine.
He said his forces had fought six Chinese soldiers and two of them had been taken prisoner. He added he had ordered officials to obtain an explanation from Beijing.
“We have information that there are many more Chinese citizens in the occupier’s units than just two. We are now finding out all the facts,” he added.
China is an ally of Russia and has been accused of helping its war in Ukraine, though Beijing has repeatedly denied allegations that it has supplied Kremlin forces with weapons.
“Russia’s involvement of China in this war in Europe, directly or indirectly, is a clear signal that Putin is going to do anything but end the war,” Mr Zelenskyy said. “He is looking for ways to continue the war.”
Mr Zelenskyy described China as having joined Russia’s war against Ukraine and said he expected the US to react.
There was no immediate comment from China.
How many Chinese are actually fighting for Russia?
Were they volunteers – or mercenaries – who had signed up to fight in the Russian army on their own?
Alternatively, does the Chinese government sanction their involvement – or even encourage it? That would make the situation far more serious.
The capture of these Chinese nationals in Donetsk begs another question – how many Chinese are actually fighting for Russia? In his written post on social media platform Telegram, Volodymyr Zelenskyy said “there are many more Chinese citizens” other than these two.
Still, the Ukrainian president works hard to suggest the Chinese, officially at least, are blameless.
“Russia’s involvement of China in this war… is a clear signal that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is going to do anything but end the war,” he writes on Telegram.
This is a generous interpretation of China’s approach to the conflict, which is quite openly contradictory.
Fighters of various nationalities have joined Russia’s army during the war, often in return for promises of large sums of money. This does not represent official interventions by their home countries.
North Korea has also sent thousands of its troops to support Russia.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:49
‘This could be very, very embarrassing for China’
After Mr Zelenskyy’s announcement, the Ukrainian foreign minister said he had summoned China’s diplomat for an explanation, saying on social media the presence of Chinese citizens in Russia puts Beijing’s stance for peace into question.
He described the actions as “just”, adding: “war must return to where it came from”.
Meanwhile, regional governor Alexander Khinshtein said Russian forces are on the verge of reclaiming Kursk, months after Ukraine’s surprise incursion.
He claimed Russian forces had seized the settlement of Guyevo. Russian state news agency TASS said only two more settlements are left to recapture – Gornal and Oleshnya – to retake the entire region.
In a carefully written post on social media platform Telegram, Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused the Russian army of deploying Chinese citizens on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine.
What about the proof? Well, the Ukrainian president says his security services captured two people from China in the Donetsk region – along with identity documents, personal data and their bank cards.
A video of a man in military fatigues who had been captured by Ukraine was pinned to the bottom of the statement.
We get snippets of a conversation where the alleged combatant seems to be talking about the events that led to his capture.
“When we arrived at the place… and then my commander.” The man gestures at the floor and ceiling, making shooting noises. “I was also injured.”
Image: Volodymyr Zelenskyy uploaded a video appearing to show a Chinese citizen in military uniform in Ukrainian custody
These details will make it difficult for the Chinese government to deny the incident out of hand, although they are highly unlikely to supply additional information.
Important details like, who are they? What function(s) do they fulfil in Ukraine’s occupied territories?
Were they volunteers – or mercenaries – who had signed up to fight in the Russian army on their own?
Alternatively, does the Chinese government sanction their involvement – or even encourage it?
The capture of these Chinese nationals in Donetsk begs another question – how many Chinese are actually fighting for Russia? In his post, Mr Zelenskyy said “there are many more Chinese citizens” other than these two.
Still, the Ukrainian president works hard to suggest the Chinese, officially at least, are blameless.
“Russia’s involvement of China in this war… is a clear signal that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is going to do anything but end the war,” he writes on Telegram.
This is a generous interpretation of China’s approach to the conflict, which is quite openly contradictory.
On one hand, Chinese President Xi Jinping describes China as a neutral party to the conflict, while simultaneously offering Mr Putin long-term political and economic support.
In fact, he described their partnership as a “no limits” one in a phone call with Mr Putin on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Mr Zelenskyy then, is making a point with this post – but he does not want to make the situation any worse.
The severity cannot be overstated, if an additional 50% tariffs are levied on all Chinese goods it will decimate trade between the world’s two biggest economies.
Remember, 50% would sit on top of what is already on the table: 34% announced last week, 20% announced at the start of US President Donald Trump’s term, and some additional tariffs left over from his first term in office.
In total, it means all Chinese goods would face tariffs of over 100%, some as high as 120%.
It’s a price that makes any trade almost impossible.
China is really the only nation in the world at the moment that is choosing to take a stand.
While others are publicly making concessions and sending delegations to negotiate, China has clearly calculated that not being seen to be bullied is worth the cost that retaliation will bring.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:50
Tariffs: Xi hits back at Trump
The real question, though, is if the US does indeed impose this extra 50% tomorrow, what could or would China do next?
There are some obvious measures that China will almost certainly enact.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Further export controls on rare earth minerals (crucial for the development of high-tech products) are one example. China controls a huge proportion of the world’s supply, but the US would likely find workarounds in time.
Hiking tariffs on high-impact US products such as agricultural goods is another option, but there is only so far this could go.
The potentially more impactful options have significant drawbacks for Beijing.
It could, for instance, target high-profile American companies such as Apple and Tesla, but this isn’t ideal at a time when China is trying to attract more foreign investment, and some devaluation of the currency is possible, but it would also come with adverse effects.
Other options are more political and come with the risk of escalation beyond the economic arena.
In an opinion piece this morning, the editor of Xinhua, China’s state news agency, speculated that China could cease all cooperation with the US on the war against fentanyl.
This has been a major political issue for Mr Trump, and it’s hard to see it would not constitute some sort of red line for him.
Other options touted include banning the import of American films, or perhaps calling for the Chinese public to boycott all American products.
Anything like this comes with a sense that the world’s two most powerful superpowers might be teetering on the edge of not just a total economic decoupling, but cultural separation too.
There is understandably serious nervousness about how that could spiral and the precedent it sets.